agentleFS
mick-gskmick-gsk/drift/.github/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

writing-plans

Skill14 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code. Creates detailed, bite-sized implementation plans with exact file paths, complete code, and verification steps.

187 other projects use a version of this, 143 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-code-review

    中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-commit-conventions

    中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • ryanportfolioSkill

    addskill

    Create, import, update, or install repo or personal skills: runtime ownership, resources, discovery checks.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • ryanportfolioSkill

    apply-firmware

    Bring current folder (plain folder, existing repo, old or partial firmware copy) up to full Harness Firmware in place. Mirror external repo → adopt-repo.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • +2 more from Leodorareluctant259
  • +6 more from ryanportfolio

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 169 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem.

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for.

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs.

    line 102
  5. Distinctive:

    After writing the complete plan, check it against the spec:

    line 118
  6. Distinctive:

    Placeholder scan: Search for "TBD", incomplete steps, vague instructions.

    line 121
  7. Distinctive:

    Type consistency: Do types, method signatures, and property names match across tasks?

    line 122
  8. Distinctive:

    After saving the plan, offer execution choice:

    line 128
  9. Very specific:

    If Subagent-Driven chosen: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development

    line 138
  10. Very specific:

    If Inline Execution chosen: Use superpowers:executing-plans

    line 139

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 169 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Writing Plans

Overview

Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."

Save plans to: docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

Scope Check

If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.

File Structure

Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for.

  • Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
  • Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
  • Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
  • In existing codebases, follow established patterns.

Bite-Sized Task Granularity

Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):

  • "Write the failing test" - step
  • "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
  • "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
  • "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
  • "Commit" - step

Plan Document Header

Every plan MUST start with this header:

# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan

> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.

**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]

**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]

**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]

---

Task Structure

### Task N: [Component Name]

**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`

- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**

```python
def test_specific_behavior():
    result = function(input)
    assert result == expected
```

- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"

- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**

```python
def function(input):
    return expected
```

- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: PASS

- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**

```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```

No Placeholders

Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are plan failures — never write them:

  • "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
  • "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
  • "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
  • "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
  • Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
  • References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task

Remember

  • Exact file paths always
  • Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
  • Exact commands with expected output
  • DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits

Self-Review

After writing the complete plan, check it against the spec:

  1. Spec coverage: Can you point to a task that implements each requirement?
  2. Placeholder scan: Search for "TBD", incomplete steps, vague instructions.
  3. Type consistency: Do types, method signatures, and property names match across tasks?

Fix issues inline. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.

Execution Handoff

After saving the plan, offer execution choice:

"Plan complete and saved to docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md. Two execution options:

1. Subagent-Driven (recommended) - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration

2. Inline Execution - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints

Which approach?"

  • If Subagent-Driven chosen: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
  • If Inline Execution chosen: Use superpowers:executing-plans

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.